U.S. patent number 6,850,895 [Application Number 09/866,879] was granted by the patent office on 2005-02-01 for assignment manager.
This patent grant is currently assigned to Siebel Systems, Inc.. Invention is credited to Robert A. Brodersen, Prashant Chatterjee, Peter Siam Sy Lim, III, Matthew S. Malden, Duane Wandless.
United States Patent |
6,850,895 |
Brodersen , et al. |
February 1, 2005 |
Assignment manager
Abstract
A method, a program product, and a system for assigning
resources to tasks in a rule based, resource constrained system.
This is done by receiving as inputs tasks and task attributes;
resources and resource attributes; and assignment rules. These
inputs are used to searching a database of tasks, task attributes,
and assignment rules thereof, to search a database of resources
including resource attributes thereof, and to retrieve resources
based upon the resource attributes. Resources are assigned to tasks
based upon matches and scores of the resource attributes, the task
attributes, and the assignment rules.
Inventors: |
Brodersen; Robert A. (Redwood
Shores, CA), Chatterjee; Prashant (Saratoga, CA), Lim,
III; Peter Siam Sy (Redwood City, CA), Malden; Matthew
S. (San Francisco, CA), Wandless; Duane (Bloomsbury,
NJ) |
Assignee: |
Siebel Systems, Inc. (San
Mateo, CA)
|
Family
ID: |
22332106 |
Appl.
No.: |
09/866,879 |
Filed: |
May 30, 2001 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
|
PCTUS9928426 |
Nov 30, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/7.14;
705/7.18 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q
10/06 (20130101); G06Q 99/00 (20130101); G06Q
10/1093 (20130101); G06Q 10/063112 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G06Q
10/00 (20060101); G06F 017/60 () |
Field of
Search: |
;705/8,9 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Foreign Patent Documents
Other References
ICL Offers to Sort Out Your Personnel for You with New Enterprisehr
Service, Computergram International, n 2631, Mar. 27, 1995.* .
Tipgos, Manual A. et al, Stress and the Emerging Legal Liability
Through Workers' Compensation: Some Suggestions for Management
Action, Journal of Applied Business Research, v8, n4 pp. 50-58,
Fall 1992..
|
Primary Examiner: Bartuska; F. J.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Soong; James W. Perkins Coie
LLP
Parent Case Text
This application is a continuation application of PCI application
no. PCT/US99/28426, filed Nov. 30, 1999, itself claiming the
benefit of the filing date of U.S. provisional application no.
60/110,269 filed Nov. 30, 1998, each above identified application
being incorporated in its entirety, into the present application,
by reference.
Claims
We claim:
1. A method in a computing system for assigning resources to tasks
in a rule-based, resource constrained system, the method
comprising: under control of the computing system, receiving
indications of multiple tasks, each task being of one of multiple
task types and having multiple task attributes that specify
constraints on which resources are able to perform the task;
receiving indications of multiple resources each having multiple
resource attributes, the resource attributes of a resource
describing aspects of the resource that affect ability of the
resource to perform tasks; receiving indications of multiple
distinct assignment rules that are each associated with one of the
task types, each assignment rule able to individually assess
whether a resource is capable of performing a task of the
associated task type; and using the assignment rules to assign
resources to tasks by, for each of the tasks, selecting one or more
of the assignment rules that are associated with the task type to
which the task belongs; and using the selected assignment rules to
assess whether resources are capable of performing the task based
upon the resource attributes of the resources and the task
attributes of the task, the assessing by determining for each of
one or more resources whether the resource attributes of the
resource indicate that the resource satisfies the constraints of
the task attributes for that task.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein each of the assignment rules have
associated criteria for use in evaluating resources, and wherein
the using of the selected assignment rules includes, for each of
the tasks to which resources are assigned: determining for each of
the selected assignment rules any qualified candidate resources
that satisfy the criteria associated with that assignment rule;
using the selected assignment rules to score the qualified
candidate resources and generate a list of assignee resources;
selecting a primary assignee resource from the generated list based
at least in part on the scores; and generating assignments of one
or more resources to the task such that the assigned resources
include the primary assignee resource.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the selecting of the assignment
rules that are associated with the task type for the task includes
finding all assignment rules available for use with the task and
evaluating the found assignment rules with respect to the task
attributes for the task.
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the selected assignment rules
include all assignment rules that are associated with the task type
of the task.
5. The method of claim 2 wherein the determining of the qualified
assignment candidate resources is based upon one or more of: i.
position based assignment; ii. employee based assignment; iii. all
people assignment; iv. task rules matching task attributes with
criteria in the rules; v. "compare task to person" rules matching
task attributes with employee or position attributes and/or skills
vi. person rules matching person's attributes and/or skills with
criteria in rules; vii. workload rules; viii. calendar availability
rules; ix. CTI availability rules; and x. geographic proximity
rules.
6. The method of claim 2 wherein the assignment rule criteria are
one or more of: i. composite criteria having multiple attributes;
ii. criteria having a finite range; iii. criteria having one or
more wild cards; and iv. criteria having an expertise code.
7. The method of claim 2 wherein the determining of the qualified
assignment candidate resources includes evaluating each assignment
candidate based upon one or more of: i. removing all candidates
that do not satisfy all required criteria; and ii. removing all
candidates that have a workload greater than a pre-assigned maximum
workload.
8. The method of claim 2 comprising scoring each qualified
candidate for each assignment rule based upon one or more of: i.
the sum of all assignment criteria that satisfy the task's
attributes; ii. the expertise weight score of the candidate; iii.
the score of the candidate; and iv. the workload score.
9. The method of claim 2 wherein generating of a list of assignee
resources for an assignment rule is based upon one or more of: i.
keeping all candidates with an assignment score greater than or
equal to a minimum score of the assignment rule; ii. keeping all
candidates having an attribute meeting the assignment rule; iii.
choosing a random candidate meeting the assignment rule; and iv.
choosing the candidate having the highest assignment score.
10. The method of claim 2 comprising determining the highest
scoring assignment rule as a primary assignment rule.
11. The method of claim 10 comprising selecting as the assignee the
candidate assignee having the highest score for the primary
assignment rule.
12. The method of claim 10 comprising writing the primary
assignment rule and the primary assignee to a database table for
the task.
13. The method of claim 2 comprising assigning individuals to tasks
in one or more of a one best fit, a random fit, or a round robin
fit.
14. The method of claim 2 comprising assigning teams to tasks.
15. The method of claim 14 comprising determining a primary person
in the team.
16. The method of claim 2 comprising matching the closest fitting
assignee to the task.
17. The method of claim 1 comprising configuring the task
attributes.
18. The method of claim 1 comprising extending the task
attributes.
19. The method of claim 1 comprising dynamically defining
assignment rules.
20. The method of claim 1 comprising assigning tasks in the
background.
21. The method of claim 1 comprising assigning tasks in real time
and interactively.
22. The method of claim 1 comprising assigning tasks
dynamically.
23. The method of claim 2 further comprising identifying at least
one exclusive assignment rule; and excluding one or more candidates
based on the identification of at least one exclusive assignment
rule.
24. The method of claim 1 wherein the multiple task types include
service requests, opportunities, contacts, accounts, activities,
campaigns and product defects.
25. The method of claim 1 wherein the receiving of the indications
of the multiple tasks and of the multiple resources includes
searching one or more databases that store information about the
tasks and the resources.
26. The method of claim 1 wherein the received indications of the
multiple resources include indications of the resource attributes
of the resources, and further comprising retrieving one or more of
the resources based upon the indicated resource attributes.
27. The method of claim 2 wherein the scoring of the qualified
candidate resources includes scoring each qualified candidate for
each selected assignment rule.
28. The method of claim 2 wherein the selecting of the primary
assignee resource includes determining a highest scoring of the
assignment rules and determining a primary assignee resource from
the generated list based on that assignment rule.
29. A system for assigning resources to tasks, said system having:
one or more databases that store indications of resources each
having multiple resource attributes describing aspects of the
resource that affect ability of the resource to perform tasks, that
store indications of tasks that are each of one of multiple task
types and that each have multiple task attributes reflecting
constraints on which resources are able to perform the task, and
that store assignment rules that are each associated with one or
more task types and are for assessing whether a resource is capable
of performing a task of one of the associated task types by
determining whether the resource attributes of the resource
indicate that the resource has the ability to satisfy the
constraints of the task attributes for that task; a database
management system able to retrieve the stored indications for
resources based upon their resource attributes and/or able to
retrieve the stored indications for tasks based upon their tasks
attributes; and an assignment engine able to assign resources to
tasks based upon the resource attributes, the task attributes, and
the assignment rules, the assigning based on selecting assignment
rules for tasks of a task type based on those assignment rules
being associated with that task type and on using the selected
assignment rules to assess whether the resources are capable of
performing the tasks of that task type.
30. The system of claim 29 wherein the assignment engine is
configured to perform the assigning of the resources to the tasks
by: a. receiving as input indications of tasks and/or task
attributes, indications of resources and/or resource attributes,
and indications of assignment rules; b. retrieving tasks that match
any indicated task attributes from the one or more databases that
store tasks; c. retrieving resources that match any indicated
resource attributes from the one or more databases that store
resources; d. retrieving the indicated assignment rules from the
one or more databases that store assignment rules; and e. assigning
resources to tasks by the assignment engine based upon the resource
attributes, the task attributes, and the assignment rules by, for
each of one or more assignment rules associated with a task type,
determining for each of one or more resources whether the resource
attributes of the resource indicate that the resource satisfies the
constraints of the task attributes for each of one or more tasks of
the associated task type.
31. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for: a. finding assignment rules for a task; b. evaluating the
assignment rules for a task with reference to attributes of the
task; c. determining at least one candidate resource for each
assignment rule that satisfies the task's attributes from each
assignment rule; d. evaluating each candidate against assignment
rule criteria; e. scoring each qualified candidate for each
assignment rule; f. applying the assignment rule to scored
candidates to generate a list of assignees; g. determining the
highest scoring assignment rule; h. determining the primary
assignee from the highest scoring assignment rule; and i.
generating assignments of resources to tasks.
32. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted to
evaluate all of the assignment rules that satisfy a particular
task's attributes.
33. The system of claim 32 wherein the system is further adapted to
determine assignment candidates based upon one or more of: i.
position based assignment; ii. employee based assignment; iii. all
people assignment; iv. task rules matching task attributes with
criteria in the rules; v. "compare task to person" rules matching
task attributes with employee or position attributes and/or skills;
vi. person rules matching person's attributes and/or skills with
criteria in rules; vii. workload rules; viii. calendar availability
rules; ix. CTI availability rules; and x. geographic proximity
rules.
34. The system of claim 33 wherein the assignment criteria are one
or more of: i. composite criteria having multiple attributes; ii.
criteria having a finite range; iii. criteria having one or more
wild cards; and iv. criteria having an expertise code.
35. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted to
evaluate each assignment candidate based upon one or more of: i.
removing all candidates that do not satisfy all required criteria;
and ii. removing all candidates that have a workload greater than a
pre-assigned maximum workload.
36. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted to
score each qualified candidate for each assignment rule based upon
one or more of: i. the sum of all assignment criteria that satisfy
the task's attributes; ii. the expertise weight score of the
candidate; iii. the score of the candidate; and iv. the workload
score.
37. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted to
generate a list of assignees based upon one or more of: i. keeping
all candidates with an assignment score greater than or equal to
the assignment rules' minimum score; ii. keeping all candidates
having an attribute meeting the assignment rule; iii. choosing a
random candidate meeting the assignment rule; and iv. choosing the
candidate having the highest assignment score.
38. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted to
determine the highest scoring assignment rule as a primary
assignment rule.
39. The system of claim 38 wherein the system is further adapted to
select as the assignee the candidate assignee having the highest
score for the primary assignment rule.
40. The system of claim 38 wherein the system is further adapted to
write the primary assignment rule and the primary assignee to the
task's table.
41. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted
for assigning individuals to tasks in one or more of a one best
fit, a random fit, or a round robin fit.
42. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted
for assigning teams to tasks.
43. The system of claim 42 wherein the system is further adapted
for determining a primary person in the team.
44. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted
for matching the closest fitting assignee to the task.
45. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for configuring the tasks.
46. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for extending the tasks.
47. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for dynamically defining assignment rules.
48. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for assigning tasks and tasks in the background.
49. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for assigning tasks in real time and interactively.
50. The system of claim 30 wherein the system is further adapted
for assigning tasks dynamically.
51. The system of claim 31 wherein the system is further adapted
for: identifying at least one exclusive assignment rule; and
excluding one or more candidates based on the identification of at
least one exclusive assignment rule.
52. A computer-readable medium whose contents cause a computing
device to assign resources to tasks of multiple task types, by
repeatedly performing a method comprising: receiving an indication
of a task that has multiple task attributes representing
constraints on which resources are able to perform the task, the
task being of one of the multiple task types; identifying multiple
distinct assignment rules that are each associated with the
indicated task by selecting assignment rules that are defined for
the one task type to which the indicated task belongs, each of the
assignment rules able to assess whether a resource is capable of
performing tasks of that one task type so as to each individually
identifying resources capable of performing the indicated task;
using the multiple identified assignment rules for assigning
resources to tasks by, for each of the identified assignment rules,
identifying multiple candidate resources that each possess
sufficient capabilities for performing the indicated task to meet a
minimum threshold, each of the candidate resources having multiple
resource attributes that describe aspects of the resource affecting
ability of the resource to perform tasks; and assessing for each of
the candidate resources a degree of ability to perform the
indicated task; and selecting at least one of the candidate
resources to perform the indicated task based at least in part on
the assessed degrees of ability.
53. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the assessing
of the degrees of ability of the candidate resources includes:
scoring each candidate resource for each identified assignment
rule; and generating a list of assignee resources by applying one
or more of the identified assignment rules to the scored candidate
resources.
54. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the selecting
of the candidate resources to perform the indicated task includes:
determining a highest scoring of the identified assignment rules;
determining a primary assignee resource from the candidate
resources associated with the highest scoring assignment rule; and
assigning at least the determined primary assignee resource to the
indicated task.
55. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the candidate
resources are personnel, and wherein the identifying of the
multiple candidate resources that each possess sufficient
capabilities for performing the indicated task includes considering
multiple factors from a group including skills of the personnel,
product expertise of the personnel, current availability of the
personnel, workload of the personnel, and location of the
personnel.
56. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the assessing
of the degrees of ability of the candidate resources includes
ranking the candidate resources based on their relative ability to
perform the indicated task.
57. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the task
relates to responding to a sales opportunity, and wherein the
candidate resources are each a distinct salesperson who can respond
to the sales opportunity.
58. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the task
relates to responding to a received service call, and wherein the
candidate resources are each a distinct support person who can
respond to the service call.
59. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the selecting
of the candidate resources to perform the indicated task includes
selecting a team of multiple people to jointly perform the
indicated task.
60. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the selecting
of the candidate resources to perform the indicated task includes
selecting a job position to perform the indicated task such that
the job position does not yet have an associated individual.
61. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the indication
of the task is received interactively from a user, and wherein the
assigning of the resources to the tasks using the multiple
identified assignment rules is performed in response to the
receiving of the indication.
62. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the indicated
task is of a predefined type, and including, before the receiving
of the indication of the task, defining the multiple assignment
rules based on information supplied by a user, associating the
defined rules with the predefined type of task, and storing the
defined assignment rules for later use in assigning resources to
tasks of the predefined type.
63. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the
computer-readable medium is a memory of a computing device.
64. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the
computer-readable medium is a data transmission medium transmitting
a generated data signal containing the contents.
65. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the contents
are instructions that when executed cause the computing device to
perform the method.
66. The computer-readable medium of claim 52 wherein the
identifying of the multiple candidate resources includes:
evaluating the identified assignment rules with reference to the
task attributes of the task; determining at least one potential
candidate resource for each assignment rule that satisfies the
task's attributes from each assignment rule; evaluating each
potential candidate resource against assignment rule criteria; and
selecting the identified candidate resources from the potential
candidate resources based at least in part on the evaluating.
67. A computer-implemented method for assigning resources to tasks,
comprising: under control of a computing system, receiving
indications of multiple distinct types of tasks; for each of the
multiple task types, defining one or more assignment rules that are
associated with the task type based on input received from a user,
each of the assignment rules having a defined mechanism for
assessing whether a resource is capable of performing tasks of the
task type; and after the defining of the assignment rules,
repeatedly assigning resources to tasks by, receiving an indication
of a task; determining the type of the indicated task; identifying
the defined assignment rules that are associated with the
determined task type; using the identified assignment rules to
assess multiple resources to determine whether those resources are
capable of performing the indicated task; and selecting one or more
of the multiple resources for the indicated task based at least in
part on the assessments of those resources.
68. The method of claim 67 wherein each of the tasks have task
attributes specifying constraints on which resources are able to
perform the task, and wherein each of the resources have resource
attributes describing aspects of the resource that affect ability
of the resource to perform tasks.
69. The method of claim 67 wherein at least some of the task types
have multiple associated assignment rules, and wherein each of the
multiple associated assignment rules for a task type have distinct
criteria for assessing resources.
70. The method of claim 67 wherein the using of the identified
assignment rules to assess the multiple resources to determine
whether those resources are capable of performing the indicated
task includes ranking at least some of the multiple resources based
on a degree of match between the resources and criteria for
performing the indicated task.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to assignment management resource allocation
methods and systems for matching resources, such as employees, with
the needs of a business, and more specifically to a method, and a
system for assigning resources in a rule based, resource
constrained system.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In many lines of business, person-to-person interactions are
critical. Each person brings with them a set of knowledge bases,
skill sets, experiences, and understanding that is unique to them.
Similarly, many tasks, be they human interactions or human-machine
interactions, require a specific set of human knowledge bases,
skill sets, experiences, and understanding that may be unique to a
small set of people, and only partially possessed by a larger set
of persons. Matching the specific person to the specific task in
such a way that the individual and global degrees of mis-match in
an organization are minimized is a challenge for management.
However, effectively managing an enterprise by managing information
via a Front Office application requires properly matched individual
employees to take ownership for tasks such as service requests,
sales opportunities, contacts, accounts and other entities.
In a service organization, service requests are often resolved by
the first customer service representative who talks with a
customer. However, this initial attempt at resolution may be far
from satisfactory, and when the request cannot be resolved or when
the service request is logged via the Internet, ownership must be
transferred to a service representative who can give the
appropriate attention and expertise to the request and provide a
timely and complete resolution. It is time-consuming and
ineffective to resolve ownership by frequent management
intercession, or by simply yelling out a call for assistance in a
telephone service center.
Likewise, in a sales organization, opportunities must be routed to
the individual or team of sales reps and sales consultants who are
responsible for following up on the lead. This assignment must be
based upon such factors as product knowledge, knowledge of the
customer, and, previous relationships with the customer. Moreover,
this assignment must take place quickly and seamlessly so that
sales reps can effectively respond to potentially
revenue-generating opportunities.
Proper assignment means objects (as tasks, service requests, sales
leads, or the like, which are referred to collectively and
interchangeably as "tasks") are allocated to the closest, most
available, and most knowledgeable people or teams of people.
Assignment may require either assigning employees or positions,
that is a role within an organization that one or more employees
are assigned to, to a task. Assignment is based on a wide variety
of criteria including attributes of the employee or position (e.g.
telephone status, calendar availability, workload) as well as
matches between the attributes of the task and attributes of the
employee or position (e.g. product skill, language expertise), and
matches between attributes of the task assigned (e.g. Opportunity,
Service request) and a pre-defined set of enumerated attribute
values.
Employees have expertise on certain products and possibly specific
product versions and upgrades. This expertise changes over time as
employees gain new skills and experience, and as new products are
released. Maintaining and providing an up-to-date skills matrix or
database in the system is critical for both service representatives
and the automated assignment processes, both of which need the most
complete product information for determining who should handle
service calls. Assigning service requests to people without product
expertise causes customers to lose confidence, employees to become
frustrated, and for service center productivity to decline.
For assignment of critical or important tasks, knowing employee
availability is also critical to ensuring a task does not sit idle
while someone is unavailable. Agent availability can include the
current indicated availability (vacation, lunch, etc.) or the
telephony availability (talking, wrap up mode, etc.)
Overloading any service representative with too many work items
leads to longer resolution times for those work items. Taking into
account an existing workload before assigning tasks can provide
better load balancing, and therefore more predictable turnaround
times.
Lastly, because of the complexity of tasks in a service or sales
organization, which require the efforts of more than a single
individual to resolve, assignment of tasks may be to teams of
persons (employees or positions) For such type of assignments,
known as team assignments, a primary person is calculated by
assignment manager, by means of scoring the closeness of the match
of each assigned person to perform the task at hand, and selecting
the closest matching person as the primary person on the team.
For field service representatives, assignment includes scheduling.
Once the optimal employee is assigned, the visit may be scheduled
on his/her calendar.
In order to accomplish these ends, a clear need exists for an
assignment manager method, system, and program product to optimally
or sub-optimally match resources with needs and opportunities in a
constrained environment, for example, to match resources, such as
employees with specific skill sets, with customer, client, and
sales lead needs and opportunities.
There is a further need to carry out matching in a constrained
environment where finite resources, including employee skill sets
and product expertise, and employee workload and availability
constrain the assignment or matching process.
Thus, there is a clear need to carry out assignment matching in a
"Rule Based" system that balances resources, needs and
opportunities, and constraints.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The assignment manager method and system of our invention matches
resources, such as employees and employee skill sets, with needs.
This is carried out in a "Rule Based" system within a constrained
environment. Resources, such as employees, are matched with
constraints, such as skill sets, employee product expertise,
language skills. Constraints include, among others, workload,
employee availability, limitations on employee skill sets and
product expertise, employee language skills, among others.
In one embodiment we provide a method, a system, and a program
product for assigning resources to tasks in a rule based, resource
constrained system. The method comprises of receiving as input (i)
tasks and task attributes, (ii) resources and resource attributes;
and (iii) assignment rules. The next step is searching a database
of tasks, task attributes, and assignment rules for the tasks, and
also searching a database of resources including resource
attributes. The task and resource attributes are matched and
resources are retrieved based upon the resource attributes, and the
resources assigned to tasks based upon the resource attributes, the
task attributes, and the assignment rules.
The searching and assigning process includes finding assignment
rules for a task, evaluating these assignment rules for the task,
and determining at least one candidate for each assignment rule
that satisfies the task's attributes with respect to each
assignment rule. Next, each candidate is evaluated against the
assignment rule criteria, and each qualified candidate is scored
for each assignment rule. The assignment rules are applied to
scored candidates to generate a list of assignees. Next, exclusive
assignment rules, if any, are evaluated, and highest scoring
assignment rule is determined. This ranking is used to determine
the primary assignee from the highest scoring assignment rule. This
is continued to generate assignments of resources to tasks.
The method can be implemented by finding all of the assignment
rules for a task. It can also be carried out by evaluating all of
the assignment rules that satisfy a particular task's attributes.
This could include determining assignment candidates based upon one
or more of: (i)position based assignment; (ii) employee based
assignment, (iii) all people assignment, (iv) task rules matching
task attributes with criteria in the rules, (v) "compare task to
person" rules matching task attributes with employee or position
attributes and/or skills, (vi) person rules matching person's
attributes and/or skills with criteria in rules; (vii) workload
rules; (viii) calendar availability rules; (ix) CTI availability
rules; and (x) geographic proximity rules.
In the method of the invention, the assignment criteria are one or
more of: (i) composite criteria having multiple attributes; (ii)
criteria having a finite range; (iii) criteria having one or more
wild cards; and (iv) criteria having an expertise code.
Each assignment candidate may be reviewed based upon one or more
of: (i) removing all candidates that do not satisfy all required
criteria; and/or (ii) removing all candidates that have a workload
greater that a pre-assigned maximum workload.
Additionally, according to the method of the invention, each
qualified candidate for each assignment rule based upon one or more
of: (i) the sum of all assignment criteria that satisfy the task's
attributes; (ii) the expertise weight score of the candidate; (iii)
the score of the candidate; and (iv) the workload score.
In a further aspect of the method of the invention a list of
assignees is generated based upon one or more of: (i) keeping all
candidates with an assignment score greater then or equal to the
assignment rules' minimum score; (ii) keeping all candidates having
an attribute meeting the assignment rule; (iii) choosing a random
candidate meeting the assignment rule; and (iv) choosing the
candidate having the highest assignment score.
In one exemplification of the invention the highest scoring
assignment rule is the primary assignment rule. This is extensible
to selecting as the assignee the candidate assignee having the
highest score for the primary assignment rule.
A further aspect of the method of our invention is writing the
primary assignment rule and the primary assignee to the task's
table.
In the method of our invention individuals may be assigned to tasks
in one or more of a one best fit, a random fit, or a round robin
fit. Additionally, teams may be assigned to tasks, with a primary
person in the team.
In a still further exemplification of the method of our invention
the closest fitting assignee is assigned to the task.
The method of our invention allows the user to configure the task
attributes, extend the task attributes, dynamically define
assignment rules, assign tasks in the background real time and
interactively, or dynamically.
A further aspect of our invention is a system for assigning
resources to tasks responsive to user inputs of one or more of
tasks or resources in a rule based, resource constrained system.
The system has a database of tasks, task attributes, and assignment
rules, as well as a database of resources including resource
attributes, and a database management system for retrieving
resources based upon the resource attributes. In the system of the
invention there is an assignment engine for assigning resources to
tasks based upon the resource attributes, the task attributes, and
the assignment rules. The system is adapted to assign resources to
tasks by the above described method.
A still further exemplification of our invention is a program
product including one or more program storage device or devices
residing on one or more computers, and having computer readable
program code for assigning resources to tasks in a rule based,
resource constrained system by a method of the type described
above.
THE FIGURES
The invention may be understood by reference to the Figures
appended hereto.
FIG. 1 illustrates the "Assignment Rules" view.
FIG. 2 illustrates the "Assignment Criteria" view.
FIG. 3 illustrates the "Assignment Workload" view.
FIG. 4 illustrates the "Assignment Employees" view.
FIG. 5 illustrates the "Assignment Positions" view.
FIG. 6 illustrates the "Workload Rules" view.
FIG. 7 illustrates the "Attribute Types" view.
FIG. 8 illustrates the "Employee Skills" view.
FIG. 9 illustrates the "Position Skills" view.
FIG. 10 is a flow chart of the Assignment Engine.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The assignment manager method and system of our invention matches
resources, such as employees and employee skill sets, with needs.
This is carried out in a "Rules Based" system within a resource
constrained environment. Resources, such as employees, are matched
with constraints, such as skill sets, employee product expertise,
language skills, workload, and employee availability, among
others.
The assignment manager method and system of our invention provides
management with the capability to optimally match resources, such
as employees, with the needs of the business. More particularly,
this invention has an integrated set of graphical user interfaces,
a database management system, one or more databases (for example of
resources and individual resource skill sets, and of requirements
and skills required by the requirements), and a state engine which
functions as a matching and optimization engine, and which may
actually be a matching and sub-optimization engine. See FIG. 10 for
a flow chart of the engine.
The graphical user interface includes panels, views, and screens
for inputting and/or retrieving assignment rules, assignment
criteria, assignment workload, assignment employees, assignment
positions, workload rules, attribute types, employee skills, and
position skills.
The graphical user interface is used by the systems administrator
or assignment administrator to add, modify or delete assignment
rules, assignment criteria, assignment criteria values, workload
rules, calendar availability, CTI rules, geographic proximity
rules, as well as to add, delete and modify employees and positions
from assignment rules and add, modify and delete employee and
position skill sets without required programming.
The graphical user interface transparently translates the
administrator actions into SQL statements to appropriately modify
the rules database, employee database and position database.
These screens and views are used to provide input to the assignment
manager tool, and receive out put from the assignment manager
tool.
Assignment rules are used to match the tasks to the assets
available to carry out the those tasks, scoring the assets in
proportion to their capability to carry out the tasks as determined
by the assignment rules, applications of weights to the scores thus
obtained, and ranking the assets according to the weighted scores.
Various algorithms may be used by the assignment engine,
illustrated in the flow chart of FIG. 10, to effect an optimal or
sub-optimal assignment in a rules based, resource or asset
constrained environment. By way of example, and not limitation,
this may include linear programming.
The attributes of tasks which are to be matched are obtained from
the database management system using complex queries, e.g., a
multi-way join against the various tables contained in the
definition of the task (e.g., Opportunity, Service Request).
This provides a list or enumeration of candidate assets (people),
which may be ranked or arrayed to show the number of attributes
that match the criteria, or to show scales or weightings of the
attributes.
These utilitarian processes are accomplished by the interaction of
various modules within the assignment manager method and system of
our invention, which matches resources, such as employees, with
constraints and needs, such as employee skill sets. The matching of
resources with needs is carried out in a "Rule Based" system in
order to stay within constraints. Resources managed by the
assignment manager application include employees, positions, among
others. Needs include skill sets, employee product expertise,
language skills, service calls, sales calls, and sales
opportunities, among others. Constraints include, for example,
workload, employee availability, limitations on employee skill sets
and product expertise, employee language skills, among others.
Assignments of tasks may be made to individual employees or to
positions, as well as to individuals or teams. The potential list
of candidate assignees may either be from the list of persons
(employees or positions) associated with assignment rules using the
graphical user interface or the list of potential candidate
assignees may comprise the entire set of employees or positions in
the system. Assignment rules may be configured to be mutually
exclusive (e.g., exclusive sales territories or customer sets). The
assignments may be made to "All" employees or explicit employees or
positions. Assignments may be exclusive assignments, such as
exclusive territories, or exclusive customer sets. And the
assignment manager method and system of our invention may be
configured to either remove or to preserve previous assignees or
assignments.
The rule based assignment manager method and system of our
invention incorporates various selection and matching rules. These
rules may be "Best Fit" matching or "Random Fit" matching or
"Mandatory Fit", with ranking of employees by, for example,
weighted rankings, flexible scoring, minimum or threshold scores.
The method and system of our invention allows for the use of
inclusion and exclusion criteria. The workload assignment may be a
configurable workload, and wild cards may be used.
Various assignment modes are incorporated into the assignment
manager method and apparatus of our invention. These may include
Interactive Assignment to provide real-time assignment.
Alternatively, assignment modes such as Dynamic Assignment and
provided and may be used to assign tasks dynamically.
The assignment manager method and system of our invention
incorporate various modules. These include Assignment Manager,
Workflow Manager, Calendar, Computer Telephony Integration (CTI),
Employee Administration, Position Administration and Skills, among
others.
Assignment Options.
The method and system of our invention will allow users to rank
employees, positions, and sales territories and to assign the most
knowledgeable, geographically desirable and accessible employee(s)
or position(s) to handle tasks. The assignment can be of a single
employee or position to a task; it can be based upon a best fit, a
round robin or a random assignment. Alternatively, the assignment
can be the assignment of multiple employees or positions per role
to a task. The method and system of our invention allows a minimum
score to be established, and enforces mandatory assignment.
The method and system of our invention can be set by the user to
either remove previous assignments when generating new assignments
for a task or to allow previous assignments to be continued.
The method and system of our invention allows both the automatic
assignment of the optimal employee(s) or position(s) or viewing a
ranked list of employees for manual assignment. However, when the
assignment manager operates in the background, assignment always
selects the optimal employee(s) or optimal position(s)
The method, system and program product of our invention allows the
calculation of a primary employee or position from among the team
of employees or positions select for assignment to a given
task.
Scheduling Options.
The scheduling options and modules with the assignment manager
method and system of our invention provide the option to
automatically create a calendar activity for the scheduled
assignment. The calendar activity is based on the earliest
availability (within the constraints for the assignment rule) for
the selected employee or position.
Employee and Position Attributes.
The employee and position attributes modules of the assignment
manager method and system of our invention allow the user to easily
define attributes for employees and positions. Additionally,
pre-defined attribute types can be created that can or should
include all the territory attributes in a Territory Assignment
module or database, plus product, product line and skill
attributes.
Attributes are used to match employee or position properties with
aspects of the tasks to which they are being assigned.
Defining Assignment Rules.
Assignment Rules are implemented using the "Assignment Rules" view
shown in FIG. 1, the "Assignment Criteria view shown in FIG. 2, and
the "Assignment Workload" view shown in FIG. 3.
Each assignment process assigns employees or positions to a task
based on any combination and weighting of the following criteria
(different executions of assignment manager may use different
combinations and weightings):
Assignment rules balance at least the following inputs: (1) Current
workload (e.g., the number of "Open" service requests), (2) Product
or product line expertise, (3) Geographic proximity (for field
service representatives), (4) Availability (based on an employee's
calendar and service calendar/work shift), (5) CTI
(Computer-Telephony-Integration) Availability (available to take
telephone calls); (6) Status (e.g., available, on vacation, in
training), (7) Role (e.g., Engineer, Sales Representative, etc.),
(8) Territory (e.g., City, State, Postal Code, Province, Area Code,
Country Code, Country, SIC Code, Product, Product Line, Revenue,
Lead Quality, Named Account), (9) Skills (e.g., French speaking(
Technical Certifications), and (10) User defined values.
The assignment rules may be created by the end-user or included in
the installation package. Those that are included in the
installation package include assignment rules for the following
tasks: (1) service requests, (2) opportunities, (3) contacts, and
(4) accounts, (5) activities, (6) campaigns, and (7) product
defects.
Additionally, the assignment rules modules allow administrators to
specify system wide assignment rules to be used by agents or users
when the Assignment Manager is invoked. These rules may have start
and stop times (based on a 24 hour clock) When multiple assignment
rules are relevant for the current time and the task being
assigned, all relevant rules are evaluated, and the employees or
positions are scored accordingly. The assignment rules modules also
allow administrators to use "wildcards" in specifying assignment
criteria.
The use of the assignment manager method and system of our
invention in conjunction with an underlying database of, for
example customer data, product data, and employee data allows
assignment of employees or positions to hierarchical tasks, like
accounts, to automatically assign the employee or position to all
parent or child accounts (i.e., navigate the entire account
hierarchy).
Invoking Assignment Manager.
The assignment manager method and system of our invention may be
invoked from, for example an external API, a workflow manager such
as Siebel Workflow Manager, a code command, such as Visual Basic or
Siebel VB, from a Computer Telephony Integration application such
as Siebel CTI (for inbound routing and transfer routing), or from a
database client, such as Siebel Client. Assignment Manager may also
be invoked by a user in real-time from an application, such as from
the Siebel Client. Assignment Manager may be invoked and requested
to be performed in the background (as a server based process).
The Assignment Manager application may be invoked automatically, as
in being scheduled to occur on a periodic basis (e.g., assign all
unassigned opportunities or service requests on an hourly or
nightly basis). In this case Assignment Manager may work in the
background. Assignment Manager may be scheduled to occur (or
automatically be re-assigned) any time an important attribute of a
task is changed.
In a further implementation of our invention, users are able to
perform real-time assignment and simultaneous CTI transfer (both
blind and consultative transfers). This may be enabled via a
"Transfer on Assignment" user preference/option (pick list: None,
Blind Transfer and Consultative Transfer).
In a further embodiment of our invention, the Assignment Manager
application is able to perform assignment for a specific instance
of a task or multiple instances of a task. This is the case where
the task meets specific criteria (e.g., all unassigned service
requests, all service requests assigned to a terminated employee,
all service requests assigned to an employee who will be out sick
or on vacation, all opportunities, etc.).
Architecture.
In a preferred exemplification of our invention, both real-time and
background assignment use the same assignment engine. Assignment
may take place on a disconnected client; however, this may be
implemented by submitting a request to assign upon synchronization
with the server.
In a particularly preferred exemplification of our invention, there
is a single assignment engine process for both skills-based
assignment (Siebel Assignment Manager) and territory assignment
(Siebel Territory Assignment) The Assignment Manager and the
Territory Assignment functions are invoked by calling the same
process and passing similar types of parameters.
Screens.
The Assignment Administration application within client
applications, as the Siebel Client, consists of several views:
Assignment Rules, Assignment Criteria, Assignment Workload,
Assignment Employees, Assignment Positions, Territory List,
Territory Detail, Workload Rules and Assignment Policies. The
Assignment Administration in Siebel Tools consists of Assignment
Attributes, Assignment Attribute Columns, Assignment Item Type,
Assignment Item Type Attribute, Workflow Task, Workflow Component
and Workflow Component Column.
In this regard, it should be noted that "drill down" capability may
be provided. For example, drill down from the Assignment Rules will
navigate to the Assignment Criteria view. Drill down from the
Assignment Workload view will navigate to the Workload Rules
view.
Workflow Tasks will have seed data for Service Requests,
Opportunities, Contacts, Accounts, Activities, Campaigns and
Product Defects.
The Assignment Rules (alphanumeric) view of FIG. 1 shows the name
of the assignment rule. FIG. 1 illustrates the "Assignment Rules"
view. Ten assignment rules are shown in the central frame, from
"Service Assignment Request" through "Test Report." The assignment
rule for "Service Assignment Request" 11a is highlighted in the
central frame 11, and expanded in the lower frame 12. The lower
frame, 12, shows the inputs for "Name", 12a, "Object", 12b,
"Activation", 12c, "Expiration", 12d, "Comments", 12e, eligible
assignees, 13, ("All People" check box, 13a, "Primary Employee" by
name, 13b, and "Primary Position" by identifier, 13c), scoring, 14,
and the choice box for the assignment algorithm, 15. The Type (pick
list) view shows the type of assignment rule, that is "One, Best
Fit" assigns the single, best employee or position based on the
assignment score One, while "Round Robin" assigns the next round
robin employee from the assignment rule employee list. This option
ignores scoring of all employees who meet the minimum score
criteria. "One, Random" assigns a random employee or position from
the assignment rule employee or position list. This option ignores
scoring of all employees who meet the minimum score criteria. "All"
Assigns all employees or positions with an assignment score above
the minimum score. This is commonly used in territory assignment.
"All, Must Assign" is the same as "All", however, it will assign a
single employee with the highest score, even if it is less than the
minimum score. The assignment rule "Multiple, One Per Role" is the
same as "One, Best Fit", but one employee per each role is assigned
to the task.
In addition, the Assignment Object is configured to select either
an individual or team of employees from all the rules that assign
employees based on the assignment types defined above.
Within the Assignment Rule is "Object" (MVG) which opens the
Assignment Objects for which the rules are to be applied (e.g.,
Service Request, Opportunity).
The Assignment Rule further includes how wide a search is to be
conducted, that is "All Employees" which checks scoring for all
employees in the database, not just the ones defined in the
"Assignment Employees" view, or "All Positions" which checks
scoring for all positions in the database, not just the ones
defined in the "Assignment Positions" view.
The Assignment Rule further includes "Score," which, if specified,
defines the score that will result for all employees or positions
in this rule if all the "required" criteria are met. In addition,
there is a "Minimum Score"; each employee or position's total score
for this rule must be above this score to be a valid match for this
assignment rule.
A further aspect of the "Assignment Rules" is the "Additional Time
Requirement" (numeric, in minutes)--which captures the additional
transit time required for the scheduled task or activity. Although
the task duration is passed when the Assignment Manager is invoked
and the duration is used in creating a calendar activity, the
additional time requirement, if specified, when combined with the
duration indicates the total time that must be available for
assignment. The total time must be available on the assignees
calendar within the standard business hours for the employee and/or
organization (system and user level preferences) This choice is
only relevant if the check calendar checkbox is selected.
The "Assign All Children" assignment rule assigns the highest rated
employee or position to all child tasks of the selected task. For
example, it assigns the employee to this account and all
sub-accounts.
The "Create Activity" schedules an activity on the assignee's
calendar for this task.
The Assignment Criteria view is shown in FIG. 2.
FIG. 2 illustrates the "Assignment Criteria" view, with a first
window for the "Assignment Rule" as in FIG. 1, a second window for
"Assignment Criteria", 22, and a third window for "Values," 23. The
"Assignment Criteria" window, 22, is used to select the particular
comparison method for a criteria, 22a, the score, 22b, and
inclusion/exclusion, 22c. The Values window, 23, shows discrete
comparison values, 23a, and scoring.
The Assignment Criteria list applet has these fields in the
following order: Criteria, Comparison Method, Score, Inclusion,
Minimum Score, Required (checkbox--if this value is checked and
this comparison results in a score of zero for an employee, the
score for the assignment rule for that employee will also be zero),
and Use Expertise (checkbox indicating whether to use expertise
weighting criteria for a match on this comparison, e.g., when the
product expertise matches, use the weight based on level of
employee expertise). These expertise weightings are system level
weightings which are used to weight scores for all the assignment
criteria values. For instance, if an assignment criteria had a
score of 15, and system level weightings for Expertise are 1, 2 and
3 for Novice, Intermediate and Advanced, the score for this
criteria would be 5, 10 and 15, respectively.
The Assignment Workload is shown in FIG. 3. FIG. 3 illustrates the
"Assignment Workload", 31, which shows the "Workload Rule" 31a, the
"Assignment Object," 31b, scoring, 31c, the "Maximum Workload,"
31d, and "Comments," 31e.
The Workloads list applet has these fields in the following order:
Workload Rules (picklist from the Workload Rules view), Assignment
task, and Score (numeric, the score for each workload rule is
inversely proportional to the quantity of work for the employee or
position)
Within our assignment manager method and system the Assignment
Criteria types include Geographic Proximity, Calendar Availability,
CTI Availability. In the Geographic Proximity type there is a score
for geographic proximity. The Calendar Availability rule type
indicates that the total time (duration and additional time
requirement) must be available for the assignee within the standard
business hours for the organization (system level preferences) CTI
Availability indicates that the employee must be available for call
transfers. The CTI Availability includes all of the following agent
states: "Not Talking", "Not Busy", "Available", "Inbound Call
Routing" and "Transfer Call Routing."
Assignment Criteria Values.
The Assignment Values applet is dynamic and based on the Criteria.
In the example shown, Address is a Category that contains three
attributes, (City, State, and Zip) Zip has been defined as Range
Enabled so it displays in two columns (low and high)
Assignment Employees.
The Assignment Employees view shown in FIG. 4 is accessible from
the Assignment Administration screen for users with System
Administrator or Customer Service Manager responsibilities. FIG. 4
illustrates the "Assignment Employees" view, 41, and enumerates
available employees for assignments, 41a.
This view lists all employees who are valid assignees for the given
assignment rule.
The Employees applet is an association applet that links assignment
rules with employees. The Employees list applet should be the
"Employee List Applet". None of the fields are editable. There is a
drill down on Last Name that navigates to the Employee
Administration view.
The Assignment Positions view shown in FIG. 5 is accessible from
the Assignment Administration screen for users with System
Administrator or Customer Service Manager responsibilities. FIG. 5
illustrates the "Assignment Positions" view, 51, which lists the
position, 51a, the division or site, 51b, the parent position, 51c,
and the position type, 51d. This view lists all positions that are
valid assignees for the given assignment rule. The layout of this
view should be similar to the Assignment Employees view.
The Positions applet is an association applet that links assignment
rules with positions. There is a drill down on Position that
navigates to the Position Administration view.
The Workload Rules view shown in FIG. 6 is accessible from the
Assignment Administration screen for users with Systems
Administrator or Customer Service Manager responsibilities. This
view is used for specifying the workload criteria for calculating
employee or position workload. FIG. 6 illustrates the "Workload
Rules" view, 61. It shows the "Field", 61a the "Comparison", 61b,
and the "Value," 61c.
The Workload Rules list applet has columns in the following order:
Name and Assignment Task.
The Workload Conditions form applet is a list view that has fields
in the following order: Field, Comparison, Value. This applet
behaves in the same fashion as the Workload Policies view,
Conditions applet.
The Attribute Types view shown in FIG. 7 is used for defining the
attribute types for both employees and positions. FIG. 7
illustrates the "Attribute Types" view. The "All Attributes" frame
71 shows the Attribute, 71a, the Type, 71b, the Picklist, 71c, the
Object Mapping, 71d and the Use Range, 71e. The "All Objects"
frame, 73, shows the Objects, 73a, and the Column, 73b. The "All
Categories" view, 75, shows the Category, 75a, and the Attributes,
75b. This information defined in this view may be defined and
viewed in such application products as Siebel Tools or Siebel
Client. The picklist field specifies the pick list to use to
display and validate the valid values for the Criteria Values.
The Object Mapping field stores the column in the Workflow Object
which must be matched with the specified Employee or Position
attribute type for that factor to receive a non-zero score. The
Object Mapping field will display an MVG pop-up applet as shown
below.
The All Categories view is used to define new Attributes that
consist of other attributes. For instance, Full Address may consist
of Street Address, City, State and Zip.
The Employee Skills view shown in FIG. 8 and the Position Skills
view shown in FIG. 9 are both accessible from the Application
Administration screen, and allow administrators to assign
attributes and skills to employees and positions. These views are
both accessible by the System Administrator, Customer Service
Manager and Call Center Administrator responsibilities. FIG. 8
illustrates the "Employee Skills" view, 81. It includes fields for
the Skill, 81a, and the Skill Items, 81b, with columns for the
specific item, 81c, and the level of expertise, 81d.
FIG. 9 illustrates the "Position Skills" view, 91, with
"Positions," 91a, (subdivided in "Division," 91a "Position," 91b,
"Description," 91c, and "Parent Position," 91d), "Position Skills,"
92, with the skill item 92a and comments 92b, and "Position Skill
Items" (further subdivided into, for example, "Language," 93a,
"Expertise," 93b).
The Attribute Type is a pick list of attribute types on the
Attribute Types view. The Match Value is an MVG based on the
Attribute Type specific Picklists. The high and low value values
are Attribute Type specific Picklists. The Expertise is a picklist
of expertise levels.
Calling the Assignment Manager.
An Assignment button will be displayed on any Siebel view or on an
application toolbar. An Assignment command will be accessible from
the Edit menu with a shortcut key, such as <Ctrl+M>.
When a single row is selected, it will be assigned when the
Assignment command is invoked. When multiple rows are selected,
they will all be assigned when the Assignment command is invoked.
The assignment engine may be called with any of the following
parameters (some of these parameters may not be passed to the
engine, but may just be attributes of the task): Object ID, Batch
ID (any object with the specified batch number), Assignment Set
(single, all unassigned, all), Object Type, Earliest Date/Time (for
the earliest date and time that an employee must have calendar
availability for the task), Latest Date/Time (for the latest date
and time that an employee must have calendar availability for the
task), Duration.
The assignment engine can be called to assign a single task, all
unassigned tasks, all tasks in a batch, or all tasks, either
through the client, a workflow manager such as the Siebel Workflow
Manager, a CTI Bridge, a Visual Basic, JavaScript, or Visual C++
command or an external API.
The assignment engine will score employees and positions for
assignment based in each factor specified. The criteria are in
addition to the skill matching.
Calendar Availability--an employee must have calendar availability
to perform the task. This is based on the assignment rule, Earliest
Start Time, Latest End Time and the sum of Duration and Additional
Time Required. If the individual is not free, the total score for
the employee will be zero regardless of the results of the other
factors.
Geographic Proximity--based on a system profile (Maximum Geographic
Proximity), the system will generate a score that is linearly
inversely proportional between the Geographic proximity weight and
zero. For instance, for a weight of 10 and a maximum geographic
proximity of 100 miles, the score for this factor for an employee
who is 60 miles away from the selected task is 4. If Geographic
Proximity Weight is zero, this factor is not used.
Workload--for each Workload Rule specified, the number of tasks
assigned to that employee that meet all of the workload condition
criteria is calculated. This number is then reduced to the level of
the maximum load. This resulting number is used to generate a score
that is inversely proportional between the workload rule weight and
zero. For instance, if the workload rule is for Unassigned,
Critical Service Requests, and the maximum load for this rule is 10
and the weight for this Workload is 20, then an employee with a
load of anything 10 or greater will receive a score of zero, an
employee with a load of 2 will receive a score of 16.
Attribute Match--For each Attribute Match Assignment Rule
specified, the criteria will be evaluated and if the condition is
true, the score will equal the weight specified, otherwise the
score will be zero. If the condition is required, the total score
for that employee or position will be zero.
Use Expertise--For each "Attribute Match" condition where "Use
Expertise" is selected, the score for that condition will be
adjusted based on the values for weighting specified for each
expertise. For the employee column that is matched, the expertise
for that attribute type must also be analyzed. For example, if an
assignment rule is specified for a product (product expertise)
match with a score of 15, and expertise weightings of Expert,
Intermediate and Novice are 3, 2 and 1 respectively, the resulting
scores for this factor would be 15, 10 and 5, respectively.
CTI Availability--if this checkbox is enabled, an employee must be
available via CTI. If the individual is not free, the total score
for the employee will be zero regardless of the results of the
other factors.
The total score for an employee or position will be a sum of the
scores for each individual criteria, modified by the "required"
assignment rules that override the total score. The highest score
will represent the most likely individual or individuals for
assignment.
When called from some applications, such as, the Siebel Client, the
assignment engine will either assign the highest scoring employee
or display a ranked list of employees, depending on whether the
Auto-Assign option is specified for the user from the Options
dialog. If auto-assign is not selected, the first user's row (with
the highest total score) will be highlighted and the Pick button
will be selected, so the user only needs to press Enter to select
the most likely candidate. The columns should be sortable just by
clicking on the column header (both ascending and descending) For
"Multiple" assignment tasks, multiple employees or positions may be
selected and/or picked. For positions, the primary employee for
each position will be displayed in this dialog.
When calling the assignment engine using Auto-Assign or selecting
an employee from the pop-up list, the assignee will automatically
be assigned to the task submitted for assignment. If submitted from
an application such as Siebel client, the selected employee that
was assigned will be visible in the assignee field of the task that
was submitted for assignment. For example, if assigning a service
request, the assignee selected by Assignment Manager will be
displayed in the Owner field for that service request.
Agents can use the Assignment Manager method and system of our
invention to find the best-suited employee to respond to a task.
The application will either automatically assign the best fit or
display a ranked list of employees for selection. The Agent will be
able to communicate who the new owner of the task is while
conversing with a caller on the telephone.
Assignment Engine
This section describes the assignment engine, including the
methodology and scoring used by the assignment engine to generate
an assignment (such as a service technician or a sales
representative) for a given task (such as a service request or a
sales opportunity) The assignment engine has the high level flow
chart shown in FIG. 10, and described herein below.
1. Find assignment rules for task. This operation is illustrated in
element 101. The first step is finding all of the assignment rules
to be evaluated for the task (service request or sales opportunity)
to receive an assignee (service technician or sales
representative). Tasks can be assigned to assignment rules by
making an entry in the Task Field of the Assignment Rule view shown
in FIG. 1. Note that if an assignment rule does not contain any
assigned tasks, then the assignment rule is deemed to be relevant
for all tasks. 2. Evaluate The Assignment Rules for A task. This
operation is illustrated in element 102. The Assignment Engine next
evaluates each criteria to find all assignment rules that satisfy a
particular task's attributes using "Compare to Object" criteria. To
be noted is that if a criteria indicated as "Required" does not
satisfy the object's attributes, the task will not be evaluated
against this rule. 3. Determine Candidates From Each Assignment
Rule. This operation is illustrated in element 103. For each
assignment rule that satisfies Step 2, above, that is, for each
assignment rule that satisfies the task's attributes, determine a
list of candidates relevant to the assignment rule.
a. If the task uses "position based assignment", then the Candidate
List will contain the positions registered in the Assignment
Positions View of FIG. 5.
b. If the task uses "employee based assignment," then the
candidates list will contain the employees registered in the
Assignment Employees view of FIG. 4.
c. If the "All People" flag is checked in the "Assignment Rule"
view of FIG. 1, then the candidates list will contain all of the
registered positions or employees in the environment. 4. Evaluate
Each Candidate Against Assignment Rule Criteria. This operation is
illustrated in element 104. Each candidate will be evaluated as
follows:
a. Between a Person and a task: The rule is to remove all
candidates that do not satisfy all required criteria that use the
"Compare Object to Person" comparison method. This criteria ensures
that the "qualified" candidates possess the required skills for
this task.
b. To Person. The "To Person" rule removes all candidates that do
not satisfy all required criteria that use the "Compare to Person"
comparison. This criteria ensures that only qualified candidates
with the required skills are evaluated for this assignment
rule.
c. Workload. The "Workload" rule removes all candidates that have a
workload greater than the maximum workload specified in the
Assignment Workloads View of FIG. 6.
To be noted is that candidates fail the criteria if they match the
specific individual criteria but fail to meet the minimum score
required. Also to be noted is that candidates that fail the
criteria that are marked as "Required" will not be evaluated
against this criteria. 5. Score Each Qualified Candidate for Each
Assignment Rule. This operation is illustrated in element 105.
Scoring for each assignment is based on the sum of:
a. Sum of all assignment criteria that satisfy the task's
attributes. This score is calculated using the criteria score and
the highest score of matching criteria values.
b. Expertise Weight Score. The Expertise Weight Score is the sum of
all matching criteria values weighted by expertise. Expertise
weight can be defined in the Order Column of the List of Views
Screen shown.
c. Score For the Candidate. The score for the candidate may be
specified in the Assignment Employees View of FIG. 4 or the
Assignment Positions view of Figure of FIG. 5.
d. Workload Score.
e. Calendar availability score
f. CTI availability score.
g. Geographic proximity score. 6. Apply Assignment Rule To Scored
Candidates To Generate The List of Assignees. This operation is
illustrated in element 106. This step uses the assignment rule type
to eliminate some candidates and determine a final list of
assignees. The following assignment rules may be used:
a. All, Above Minimum. This rule keeps all candidates with an
assignment greater than or equal to the assignment rule's minimum
score.
b. All, Must Assign. This is the same as the "All, Above Minimum"
except that at least one candidate will be assigned even if all
candidates fail to meet the minimum score.
c. One, Random. Choose a random candidate among those above the
minimum score from this assignment rule.
d. One, Best Fit, This assignment rule keeps the single, best
qualified candidate among those above the minimum score for this
assignment rule. 7. Evaluate Exclusive Assignment Rules. This
operation is illustrated in element 107. If at least one assignment
rule that satisfies Step 2, "Evaluate The Assignment Rules for A
task," is marked "Exclusive", choose the assignees with the highest
scoring assignment rule, and eliminate all other assignees. If more
then one "exclusive assignment" rule yields the same score, then
assign the task to the default employee for employee-based
assignment or the default-based assignment. 8. Determine The
Primary Assignment Rule. This operation is illustrated in element
108. The "Primary Assignment Rule" is the highest scoring
assignment rule. 9. Determine The Primary Assignee. This operation
is illustrated in element 109. Determine the primary assignee from
the primary assignment rule. If the primary assignment rule does
not assign a valid assignee, then choose the next highest scoring
assignment rule, until an assignee can be assigned.
a. For tasks that use employee-based assignment, set the primary
assignee to the primary employee selected in the Assignment
Employee view of FIG. 4. If the selected primary employee is not an
assignee that satisfies Step 6, select the highest scoring employee
of the highest scoring assignment rule. If no assignment rules
matched or no employees matched, then assign the default employee
as specified in the Assignment Tasks view in Siebel Tools.
b. For tasks that use position based assignment, set the primary
assignee to the primary position selected in the Assignment
Position views of FIG. 5. If the selected primary employee is not
an assignee that satisfies Step 6, select the highest scoring
position of the highest scoring assignment rule. If no assignment
rules matched or no positions matched, then assign the default
position as specified in the Assignment Tasks view in Siebel Tools.
10. Generate Assignments. Write assignments to the task This
operation is illustrated in element 110.
a. Write the primary assignment rule and primary assignee to the
task's primary table.
b. For team based tasks, write all assignees to the task's team and
assignment rule team tables.
The assignment manager method and system of our invention is
capable of use in several different applications. First, while an
agent or dispatcher is on-line looking at a task (such as, an
opportunity, a service request, an account, etc.), he or she can
assign it to someone else in real time. This is desirable when, for
example, the service representative needs to easily have that task
assigned, automatically, to the appropriate individual with the
appropriate skill set and/or product knowledge.
Alternatively, unassigned service tasks may be automatically
monitored by the Assignment Manager and automatically assigned
appropriately, to another employee, agent, or service technician,
if and when necessary.
Using the assignment manager method and system of our invention,
administrators may submit batches of tasks for reassignment. For
instance, when an employee is promoted, all of their service
requests heretofore serviced by the newly promoted employee may
need to be reassigned.
Lastly, when the Assignment Manager tool of our invention is used
in a remote or mobile client, a request that is submitted that is
submitted at one point in time is processed at a later point in
time, when the mobile user synchronizes with the server.
Manager's View and Use
Managers will set-up and refine assignment rules to provide load
balancing and resource allocation across an organization.
While the invention has been described with respect to certain
preferred embodiments and exemplifications, it is not intended to
limit the scope of the invention thereby, but solely by the claims
appended hereto.
* * * * *